Seaside selfies from Spain may be a thing of the past if the UK waves buh-bye to Brussels without a Brexit deal.
Brits have delighted in the ability to "Roam Like at Home" thanks to a bunch of EU regulations forcing carriers to allow their customers to call, text and use data without incurring heart-stopping surcharges.
Data …

COMMENTS

Umm...

I imagine the chocolaty bit at the bottom of the cone in a Cornetto will also be smaller after Brexit. Wall's, to my knowledge, have made no comment - which speaks volumes. Will the horror never end!!!???!!!!

It matters not. The B word is clickbait in the extreme, with mouth-frothing remoaners leaving no turd unstoned when venting their bile that their side lost.

Whilst I'm perhaps regretting some aspects of my vote to leave, watching the paroxysms of spittle inflected rage of the Remain camp, I think that voting leave will be worth any economic cost. And if we have a second vote, I'll still vote leave for that reason.

"In the event of no deal or a hard Brexit, please do come back after March and tell us how you, personally, are winning."

I don't have to wait for March. Baiting sad-sack Remoaners is winning on its own. Apparently the cost to me is the price of a couple of coffees for an international driving permit. I think I'm getting that much value every day.

Re: I'd select the troll icon if I could.

Don't diss the "remainers", they are a vital part of the Brexit strategy - any and all negative results after Brexit will be blamed on the remainers who will be vilified & persecuted in the press and online, and if we can't string a few of them up then it wont be for want of trying.

"Don't diss the "remainers", they are a vital part of the Brexit strategy - any and all negative results after Brexit will be blamed on the remainers who will be vilified & persecuted in the press and online, and if we can't string a few of them up then it wont be for want of trying."

I have my rope ready. Bwahahahahahahahahaahaaa!

I'm not sure what I enjoy most: Stroking my long haired white cat, the shrill & righteous indignation of the Remoaners, or their sense of proportion-free victimhood. On reflection they're all good.

RE: LucreLout

"We disagree politically, so that's about the same as every general election ever then"

If you change your mind about a general election vote that's OK, the effect only lasts for 5 years at the most. If you change your mind about a constitutional vote affecting your countries relationship with others and which carries inevitable economic consequences, tough. At best, if you change your mind you're in for long negotiations to reverse it and you may only be able to do so at less advantageous terms than before. That's why its conventional for referenda to require a supermajority. And, of course, you decide before the event whether the decision is to be binding or advisory.

If you ask do I think such revisions to the EU treaties should have been subject to binding referenda requiring a supermajority, yes I do. That doesn't affect the fact that this has been an economically disastrous decision made in an outrageously stupid manner.

If you change your mind about a constitutional vote affecting your countries relationship with others and which carries inevitable economic consequences, tough.

'Twas the same when we voted to join a common market.

That's why its conventional for referenda to require a supermajority.

Conventioanl where, exactly? In the UK it's not conventional at all.

And, of course, you decide before the event whether the decision is to be binding or advisory.

All referendums are binding. Were they not, people would not vote in them. Remainers wrote the text, so its too late to moan about the spelling.

That doesn't affect the fact that this has been an economically disastrous decision made in an outrageously stupid manner.

I agree, but now we're ont he verge of reversing that and leaving the EU to go back to our historically advantageous position of trading with the rest of the world, instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

Don't diss the "remainers", they are a vital part of the Brexit strategy - any and all negative results after Brexit will be blamed on the remainers

Indeed that are. Because once the consequences start to bite everyone will claim to have been a remainer all along. It'll be the only way to avoid the blame. The outcome of the vote will be seen to have been a strange statistical anomaly.

Would you have voted leave if Jacob Rees Mogg had said he was transferring his investment business to Ireland?

We're less than a year away from 'leaving'...I can count the value of trade deals negotiated in binary with one digit...and before you say we re not allowed...we're leaving so what are they going to do...throw us out?

Would you have voted leave if Jacob Rees Mogg had said he was transferring his investment business to Ireland?

Fuck I love Chinese whispers. Have you heard the one about Juncker and his crack cocaine problem?

It's not JRM's business and he's not transferring it to Ireland. Would you like to try again with the lies on ice?

In other news the guy with the whole if it was simple it would have happened by now - if we didn't have a remoaner government screwing everything up backed up by a remoaner civil service and even to the extent they're trying to get things done a remoaner house of lords with a SERIOUS democratic deficit bought and paid for by the EU, aka us - literally being taxed to do us self-harm by the way - it's simple, yes.

You wouldn't have done things like "forgot" that you have to get it past the House of Lords, when if you'd just done that a year before anyway, you could have pushed it through a second time and their objections that time would mean nothing as it could just become law anyway.

There wouldn't be stories about what could happen *now*, that everyone could have told you years ago would happen in this case.

"Amazingly, when we pull out of the EU, all those EU-wide agreements mean nothing any more". Gosh, I'm shocked.

It doesn't have to be the end of the world to be a silly idea.

And if we did everything that 50%+ of people vote for, you'd end up with men having to look after all babies at home, and towns in Sweden voting themselves free money instead of having to work (literally just happened!).

If we're gonna vote on these things, I'd infinitely prefer a vote on "Should we go to war with country X" (with a min 75% threshold for ceratinty), which we never seem to get.

Remainers really are going to have to take responsibility for all three of those.

Gina Miller managed to string the whole thing out by around a year with pointless and meaningless legal challenges for no better reason than she didn't like the result.

Chequers is what happens when you have remainers negotiating Brexit. It's logically absurd - you don't let the people who think we can't possibly succeed without kowtowing to the rEU negotiate how we leave it. Negotiating from a position of fear never produces your best outcome.

We're not reliant on the rEU bending to our will. Leavers don't want chequers, they want a clean break and WTO rules while we sort out a realistic trade deal: essentially rebooting the rEU back to what it was originally intended to be. I know remainers are firghtended by that idea, but that's just mostly because they don't understand economics, trade, or finance.

@LucreLout you seem to forget that it was such a marginal "win" for Brexit that it was clearly insane going through with it without a proper analysis and a rerun when we actually exactly know what Brexit was.

@LucreLout you seem to forget that it was such a marginal "win" for Brexit that it was clearly insane going through with it without a proper analysis and a rerun when we actually exactly know what Brexit was.

And it wasn't even a compulsory-for-parliament-to-enact vote.

The entire bill which formed the basis of the referendum, the question we were asked, and the government campaign to keep us in, were all formed by a remainer. The arch remainer at that. So remainers complaining about it need to look to themselves.

The referendum was spelled out very clearly before you voted - one and done, no re-runs; the same as the Scots IndyRef. There's no do-overs.

Point of fact, people voting leave did so ont he basis that the arch remainer guaranteed them he'd fire A50 in the morning and then we'd have a punishment budget. And still Leave won out.

Sorry, but you've had your say on this matter and you're on the wrong side of history. There's no democratic basis or need for another vote; quite the opposite - there is a democratic imperative that the result be honoured.

> Or the government can completely ignore it. It was an advisory referendum.

I'm not sure they can do that now parliament voted to accept that advice? Or at the very least it's now extremely non-trivial...

And I think this is 'advice' in the 'legal instruction to representative' sense, rather than e.g. 'avoid the squid ink soup'.

So while the Act didn't say it was binding (not sure it said advisory either?), they chose to make it binding. The same people who approved the referendum and the wording of the question and the timetable etc etc. Cameron is the prime culprit but he was by no means alone.

If the people wanted to change their mind, then they could have elected politicians in 2017 who promised to reverse the referendum. They didn't. They voted for politicians who promised not to reverse the referendum.

That’s the point! None of the actual Brexiteers would get involved in a position of authority as then they’d have no scapegoat when they don’t “hard brexit”.

Let someone else agree to the inevitable deal, then blame them for everything and say you’d never have agreed to such a plan. From there it’s an easy step to use that platform to elevate yourself to power.... at which point your “hands will be tied” and you’ll just do the best you can with the status quo.

If Boris *actually* cared about Brexit he’d be in there putting his name on a plan he argued for and proposed. In fact, wouldn’t the Brexiteers have had a plan for Brexit to begin with if they actually intended it to happen???

You can’t blame the remain vote for the complete lack of Brexit plan by the people who proposed it.

You can’t blame the remain vote for the complete lack of Brexit plan by the people who proposed it.

Cameron, if he had enough of a brain to dig himself out of the hole he himself created, should have said, "Vote Leave have a month to come Downing Street with a document at least as detailed and as heavy as the indyref document published by the SNP before their referendum. This document will then be independently reviewed over a period of one year. If the plan is viable then the article 50 notice will be given."

And Vote Leave would have had a month to come up with something which isn't unicorns and rainbows, and as we know know, would have been impossible.

But instead he said, "We'll have a new Prime Minister on Wednesday, do-dooo do-do, right, good" and buggered off.

come Downing Street with a document at least as detailed and as heavy as the indyref document published by the SNP before their referendum.

The problem was that the SNP document was a total work of fiction. They assumed England would simply pay Scotlands national debts, set up a favourable trade agreement, vote for them to be allowed back into Europe, and gift them all of the oil (which according to international convention is in English waters, not Scottish ones).

The problem was that the SNP document was a total work of fiction. They assumed England would simply pay Scotlands national debts, set up a favourable trade agreement, vote for them to be allowed back into Europe, and gift them all of the oil (which according to international convention is in English waters, not Scottish ones).

Then presumably, if the Vote Leave document were similar, it wouldn't have passed review.

(There still is no Vote Leave document. Not even the ERG can summon one up after all this time.)

A top brexshiteer - Double D himself was supposed to be negotiating, but he ran away when he realized it was not the simple task he thought, but was actually complex.

.. Think of a phrase involving talk the talk & walk the walk ...

The May govt gave Brexshiteers lots of top roles (Raab the latest) - and they are proving totally useless, Chequers is on the table as the Brexit boys failed to deliver on negotiations.

The whole thing is a fiasco, but what do you expect with the clowns involved in UK politics

Disclosure, I am pro remain, mainly because our UK politicians are so crap I prefer a bit of moderating competent influence from Brussels & appreciate EU regs that have led to cleaner rivers, sea, better maternity leave, rules on working hours - lots of quality of life improving stuff that the UK gov would have been unlikely to impose. I also like the idea of free movement & meeting people of different cultures & experience - not a fan of jingoistic nationhood based primarily on the accident of birth place.

"Remainers really are going to have to take responsibility for all three of those."

Fuck off. You broke a vase, and are now saying the exasperated cleaner trying to sort out your mess should take responsibility, while simultaneously trying to make her job harder at every possible turn.

"Gina Miller managed to string the whole thing out by around a year with pointless and meaningless legal challenges for no better reason than she didn't like the result."

And, you know, because it was the actual law. One important point from the court case is that Parliament will decide on the deal/no deal outcome, and can force through other changes against the will of the Executive if need be.

"Chequers is what happens when you have remainers negotiating Brexit. It's logically absurd - you don't let the people who think we can't possibly succeed without kowtowing to the rEU negotiate how we leave it. Negotiating from a position of fear never produces your best outcome."

This is your utter delusion. Britain has no fucking cards to play in this negotiation. We have set ourselves on fire and are now trying to run around grabbing others.

"Leavers don't want chequers, they want a clean break and WTO rules while we sort out a realistic trade deal"

Shut up about the WTO. I will have to shout because you are obviously a bit mutton. THE UK IS NOT IN THE WTO. We are actually having to apply to rejoin the WTO, and are doing so right now. This will involve splitting up lots of quotas between rEU and the UK, and other countries are objecting, including the US and Australia. They want their pound of flesh just to allow us to join the organization Leavers seem to think we are already in.

"I know remainers are firghtended by that idea, but that's just mostly because they don't understand economics, trade, or finance."

Right. So the CBI knows nothing about economics, trade or finance, but you do. What's your plan on sorting out an MRA with the EU? Do you think we should have one? Because NTBs seem to be a bit of an issue with JiT production. The EU can just say 'no' to everything, and then we have no certification for flights, nuclear materials, and several other things.

All airports in the UK shut down. All nuclear plants shut down. The Eurostar shuts down. Massive delays on ferries. No UK-registered lorries leaving the UK at all. Little if any food making it into the UK due to no flights.

This is what actual no-deal, as in clean Brexit is. It's literal suicide, as in millions of deaths. You seem in your fugue state to be talking about a basic deal that sorts out all this sort of stuff, but with no trade in place. EU says no until Ireland is sorted out, which means trade needs to be in place. EU says no hard border in Ireland. Where should we put that border, you leave-voting fuckwit? You voted leave, you tell me where it should go.

"Gina Miller managed to string the whole thing out by around a year with pointless and meaningless legal challenges for no better reason than she didn't like the result."

Leavers should be worshipping her. Her intervention guaranteed brexit met the legal requirements of the EU and A50, she ensured it could not be aborted by last minute challenges. For the EU27 she ensured you will be leaving, whether you change your minds or not. What UK voters choose no longer matters.

Why do people use this pre-apology structure for their comments? I never fucking apologise for anything I write. Don't like it? Downvote me, I don't give a shit."

It's a pre-apology because you are about to tell someone they are an utter moron. The idea is to soften the blow a little bit first, like a pillow you put over someone before you shoot them in the face.

Re: RE: Andre

I'm not British

so I don't completely get it, but I have heard people say that it's about taking back control, that it's better to starve and freeze under the flag of St George (I've never personally met anyone Scottish or Nordie speak well of Brexit) than adopt regulations agreed by their elected MEPs which impose human rights or food standards. Fog in channel, continent cut off.

Hit the nail on that one.

It does appear that people who voted leave (trolls aside) don't and won't see any of the negatives that are coming out as fact, they insist it was a majority vote (with 72% turn out the vote was nearer 36%, 34% in favour.) they insist it will be better (despite Liam Fox, Rhys Mogg and even Boris saying its not going to be great) and seem to ignore all the issues around companies leaving, massive staff shortages in areas like farming and the NHS as something that a mystical british work force will appear to fix.

But a couple of good demographic charts show most of the voters to leave were old, most of the people to remain were young. So old people voted for something that will have be lived with and picked up by the next generation who didn't want it. What a selfish bunch the "leave" people are.

It is like a religious path to oblivion for them... Very much like Trump supporters.

... And remember, Africa is our salvation. 49 nations from the bottom end of the world economy will save us. With yet to appear trade deals to replace the global power houses.

Re: Hit the nail on that one.

Re: Hit the nail on that one.

But a couple of good demographic charts show most of the voters to leave were old, most of the people to remain were young.

Of course, it's only those of us over 50 who remember what it was like before the EU and can see how much damage it's doing to Europe. The youngsters don't know their history, and believe the propaganda that they only have freedom thanks to Brussels, when in fact the reverse is true. They'll learn over time as the EU dies and the rest of the world gets on with business.

Re: Hit the nail on that one.

It's fundamentally false to suggest remain = young, leave = old, for one thing. Secondly particularly old people don't vote. It's a fundamental misreading of the data to suggest these arguments are blanket true. Here's a stat that will blow your mind too - inner-city muslims voted to leave in droves too. Sure there's a leaning one way in all these demographics but they're not as clear cut as people trying to paint a narrative would like you to believe.

They lost the argument and the vote and went straight for ad hominem before trying to understand the issues. Remainers at somewhere between stage 3 and 4; 5 will come. 40 years we'll be able to have an adult discussion about EU membership - we certainly can't have one now - but for now we're leaving in UK and EU law next march.

Re: Hit the nail on that one.

So old people voted for something that will have be lived with and picked up by the next generation who didn't want it. What a selfish bunch the "leave" people are.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that the old people are (by definition) the only people who can remember life before the Common Market? And so are uniquely qualified to vote on this matter - because they are the only ones who know the difference?

"I think that voting leave will be worth any economic cost. And if we have a second vote, I'll still vote leave for that reason."

If you're not happy with what you see in a mirror I suggest you keep sharp objects away from your nose.

In the meantime my children and grandchildren are going to have to live with that economic cost in the longer term, or would have to unless they're able to take advantage of the fact that they're entitled to Irish citizenship.

But thank you for your exposition of the attitude that brought us this unthought-out mess.

In the meantime my children and grandchildren are going to have to live with that economic cost in the longer term

Mine are going to live with the economic opportunity. So are yours. Stop being afraid and start taking hold of the opportunities available.

My family have already (financially) done very well out of remainer panic. We remortgaged at all time low base rates, and fixed it for the life of the loan, moved out of the £ and then back in once the panic had set in, thus addind substantially and tax efficiently to our assets. If you were too busy panicing or incapable of thinking things through to do the same then I can hardly be blamed for that.

The end of the next labour government is going to make my family rich beyond anything I could have comprehended growing up. Those voting labour not so much, but again, I can hardly see how that will be my fault.

Just like the Labour Party, who are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of the Tories failing to achieve a Brexit deal. May suggested that Labour join in the negotiations and committees to help with Brexit, but Labour refused. Whether or not you agree with Brexit, there is no going back. Labour could have helped, but they actively decided not to.

Or, to put it another way, Labour (instead of helping at a historic and difficult moment in the UK) are willing to throw the population of the UK "under the bus" to satisfy their desire to see the Tories fail.

RE: Domquark

Labour have announced they would accept any deal and wouldn't walk away from talks, that they want more than Theresa May is asking, and have frustrated the entire process over the last few years. To spell it out for anyone who can't see through that - Labour would accept a deal worse than Theresa May, or would crash out with No deal, since the EU won't give them their negotiating goals.

Or maybe, now I'm just speaking from personal experience here so what would I know - we HAVE travelled beyond Dover, like, before the EU was the EU and that we regularly travel BEYOND the EU and know that travelling isn't in any way difficult - or better yet we work with people, companies and do trade outside the EU and have had enough of people talking utter utter nonsense about things they plainly don't understand.

By the way speaking as somebody who's family was robbed by French customs (with some other families - they wanted bribes for completely lawful and normal entry and when they didn't get that they took to just robbing people) with no recourse and held at the Spanish border by the Spaniards for three days when we were supposedly all kumbaya happy friends anybody who thinks any of this is a thing has ZERO sense of perspective.

Re: going to the continent was a nightmare.

"Or maybe, now I'm just speaking from personal experience here so what would I know - we HAVE travelled beyond Dover, like, before the EU was the EU and that we regularly travel BEYOND the EU and know that travelling isn't in any way difficult - or better yet we work with people, companies and do trade outside the EU and have had enough of people talking utter utter nonsense about things they plainly don't understand."

Let's use an analogy of a car club.

You own a car. Then you join a car club. For a monthly fee, you can borrow a car whenever you want. They sort out MOTs, insurance, repairs, and so on, so you can just get on with driving. Yes, of course you pay for all that, but someone else deals with it. You get rid of your car, because you don't need one, turn your front driveway into a garden, and everything's great.

Your kids keep are moaning at you: why are you in this stupid car club? It costs you money every money, but if we owned our own car we wouldn't have to pay a fee. Finally, their insistent wittering means you call a family meeting. Everybody gets one vote: car club or back to owning your own car. You and your partner vote to stay in the car club. The three children each vote to leave it. I mean, they have no idea about this stuff, but one person one vote, right? So fine, you tell the car club you will leave.

You give your two months' notice. Your kids keep shouting about driving to some sunlit uplands, asking why haven't we just left car club yet. "Why don't we have a car yet?" they shout. "We used to have a car, how hard can it be? Just buy a car and let's go!" But it's not that simple, is it? As an adult, you know that first you will need somewhere to park your car. You used to have a garage but you demolished that to make way for a summerhouse for the kids. You tell them the summerhouse will have to go to make way for the garage. "You didn't tell us this before we voted to leave car club! No, summerhouse stays!" they shout. There's nowhere else to park the car, you might respond. "We made a democratic decision to leave car club, and that's what we should do. Why are you trying to frustrate the will of the family?" OK, fine, we'll come back to where to park the car.

We'll have to cancel this year's summer holiday though, because we need the money to pay for a new car. "What??" they shriek. The youngest child says "but my brother painted "£350 sent to car club every month. Let's spend it on toys instead" on the side of my bus. Nowhere were the setup costs of this alternative arrangement mentioned.

If we don't sort it out soon, at the end of the two month period, we won't be able to use the car club car to go to the shops and buy food. "You always wanted to stay in car club, Remainer. You are sabotaging this. Can't we have a clean exit from car club?" OK, you say. Do you have any suggestions of a reputable dealership to buy the car from? Maybe we can lease one from the same place the car club gets their cars? Edward Evans Automobiles, I think they're called. "We voted to leave car club! That means no deals with EEA either!" The middle child says "well, actually I wouldn't have minded staying with the EEA cars, they were all right, but that wasn't an option at the family meeting."

"Traitor! Enemy of the family" the eldest, loudest child shouts, with his stupid floppy hair getting in his face. "We go somewhere else to buy our car." What about servicing, MOTs, repairs, all the other stuff? We don't have those contracts with local garages any more. "Get new ones!" shouts the floppy haired kid. "We should be able to do a better deal than car club. After all, we don't need some of the things that car club needs, so we can get a discount." But garages don't generally do discounts to individual customers, only for bloc bookings. Besides, the biggest two local garages, Honest Donald's and Definitely Not A Thief Xi's, don't look that great for a customer on their own.

We've spent all this time arguing about where to buy the car from, what shape the border on the end of the driveway will look like after we pave over the front garden, and lots of little things like this, that there's only a week to go and we haven't even arrange to have the driveway paved over, never mind bought a car or sorted out the insurance. Two of the three kids keep saying it'll be fine. It turn out they have a local taxi service's number, so they'll be all right, but everybody else might well be screwed.

Its only a non story if you nexer stray beyond the safety of Dover I suppose or are you so well heeled you just dont care?

It's a non-story because every time the networks are asked about this they say they won't do it, yet journalists keep regurgitating the FUD.

And for your info I live in eastern France, where phones roam onto Swiss networks with random cost penalties depending on your provider. No EU effect there, nor is there in the Channel Islands, nor the IoM, and similar places. So yes, I do care, but not about nonsensical propaganda and FUD.

Oh - so it's fake news. Tell me where is the impact assessment from the UK government? Lets face it - we're on a no deal Brexit and WTO deals and little else. Looking forward to the long queues and having to pay for a visa to go to Europe.

If only roaming worked at all

Recently took a holiday in Croatia (lovely, lovely country, well recommended to fellow commentards) and our small family fleet of phones weren't much cop at roaming. The two iD Mobile devices were OK, but data never worked, and the Talkmobile devices didn't work at all, even after speaking to customer services to ensure that roaming was available.

Conclusions:

1) Avoid Talkmobile (Vodafone) as they're shit at everything

2) Avoid iD Mobile because the DixonsPCWorldCarphone business will spaff your data to the world

Re: If only roaming worked at all

@themeerkat

Three has worked great in every country I've been to so far, and when I'm in the US, I forgot I'm actually roaming....

Which is why I take umbrage at, "Vodafone were unable to resist reminding us that it was the first UK operator to abolish EU charges...." Three were well ahead of you there, Voda.... may not have been *every* country, but they've had free roaming in many countries for years before the EU law change

Re: If only roaming worked at all

Re: If only roaming worked at all

Just got back from Croatia reminded me of Greece before it joined the EU. The internet in our hotel was super fast at all times (wow). Mobiles worked fine other what when the short byt huge electrical storms we experienced took out the power locally for short periods.

Re: If only roaming worked at all

Re: If only roaming worked at all

Anon? Well you did so I will.

I went to Pula in May and spunked 15Gb of my Voda data in the two weeks we were there. Mainly Spotify over Bluetooth to a speaker and my daily dose of LBC in the morning. Even managed to stream some netflix when we were on a beach. 4G reception and bandwidth was brilliant.

Re: re: No Plans?

Interfering with the free market?

"The government would pass legislation to ensure that charges remained capped £45 ..."

Errmm, is that Conservative government proposing to interfere with the free market??? When Labour proposed something similar (price caps for energy) they complained loudly about that being socialist idiocy. Can't see JRM and friends being in favour.

EE told us that it offers "inclusive roaming in Europe and beyond, and we don't have any plans to change these offers" and O2 said it has "no plans to change our roaming services across Europe".

That doesn't reassure, the current crop of voted in twits are busy trying to leave everything with 'Europe' in the title, despite the referendum only mentioning preference to remaining with or leaving the European Union.

At least two UK networks were offering "no roaming" deals in several countries in the EU and elsewhere, some years before the EU decided to impose their directive on the matter. Three is currently offering their "Feel at Home" deal in 71 countries (including EU27) - it seems unlikely they would want to reduce this number to 44, purely because of Brexit. The driver for these deals is competition, not the EU's directive.

The problem is that competition doesn't really work for things like roaming charges or termination fees due to lack of transparency or priority with the average consumer. That's when it makes sense for an authority to intervene and fix market failure.

JohnG don't say sensible things. P.S. they're not pretending - they actually don't know that the mobile networks did this long before the EU mooted it which is why the EU felt safe to do it in the first place. That plus the whole thing with them doing it with countries they are most definitely not required to would blow the average remainers tiny little mind.

Not for nothing but if they all reverted to the previous status quo they would in fact be a telco cartel and competition authorities would be forced to step in.

It isn't a cost it's a choice to charge and that's why people are so confused. The mobile networks already have enough stuff going against them, there's no reason to drive more people away.

Re: 3 did it in desperation

Vodafone tried to tempt me away from Three a while ago. The sales bloke was telling me about their almost 50 countries I could roam in for no extra charge. I looked at the list and was instantly drawn to the fact that most of the nations listed were European or related to one. Also since when did the Vatican City get their own mobile network? I explained that I wasn't going to switch because the free roaming didn't cover the USA and the cost of roaming there was £6 a day. Their PAYG rates were also expensive in comparison. He lost interest when he found out that I was a PAYG customer which spoke volumes.

Re: Who's opinion would you trust most out of this lot?

(a) Theresa May - Jury out, hard to tell if she is any less of a bastard than the average politician because the other bastards won't stop rocking the boat.

(b) Boris Johnson - bumbling fool act is quite comical but blunt-tipped scissors and crayons only for him please. Everything he does seems self-serving and he is prepared to do it even if it damages the country.

(c) Moggy - in my opinion definitely out to manipulate the large uneducated underclass to serve his personal ambitions.

(d) Mark Carney - not an actual politician but no doubt involved in politics. Safe pair of hands.

(e) Anonymous Coward of The Register. Read some of their crass foam-mouthed comments above. Can't take them seriously at all.

(f) Jeremy Corbyn - dangerous. Labour would be in number 10 right now, would have won the last election had they had a credible candidate for PM.

Re: Who's opinion would you trust most out of this lot?

Re: Who's opinion would you trust most out of this lot?

Carney is IMHO the most sensible, and arguably the most politically independent, apart from perhaps AC.

Here's Carney's latest:-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45516678

The main problem with that view, is that on all available evidence to date, any Brexit related economic prediction I make after 0 to 10 lagers, has been considerably more accurate than the most accurate Brexit prediction from Carney or the BoE.

The only reason house prices would fall is if interest rates shot up. The only reason that would happen is to defend a run on the pound. The reason that won't happen is that Brexit is already priced in to the pound now.

What is more likely to happen should the pound fall further, is that London skyrockets as more foreign investors buy what is now to them a discounted central London property.

Re: Who's opinion would you trust most out of this lot?

>The only reason house prices would fall is if interest rates shot up. The only reason that would happen is to defend a run on the pound. The reason that won't happen is that Brexit is already priced in to the pound now.

House prices would also fall if there was a sudden increase in the number of people that could no longer afford them due to like no longer having paid employment. If they can't afford the mortgage and struggle to find another job the options are:

Re: Who's opinion would you trust most out of this lot?

Brexit is only priced in to a certain extent. I think the current prices reflect an assumption that Britain will leave with some sort of deal with Europe, limiting the potential financial damage. Given that European politics often ends up with deals being done at the last minute we won't see the pricing in of a hard brexit until much closer to the trigger point, so a sudden drop causing a run on the pound isn't unthinkable.

House prices could also fall if there was a sudden net migration of people from the UK, lowering demand for housing. A hard brexit which removed rights to remain from EU citizens could provde that scenario - sure, some EU-based brits would come back, but their numbers would be fewer than those leaving.

I wouldn't be too sure about BTL landlords putting a backstop on the effects of declining property prices. For a long time rents have been hovering at around the same amount as the finance costs of a 100% loan on the property. When you factor in regulatory overheads (gas safety checks, legionnaires assessments, EPCs), agency/management fees, and property maintainance costs it's not unusual for BTL to barely break even or actually make a loss, especially as it's no longer possible to reclaim the full costs of financing (mortgage interest).

The whole industry has been riding on the idea that property values are forever going upwards, and that eventually returns will be realised through the capital gain on the properties. If the market does go into reverse it'll at the very least disrupt these plans for BTL investors, but if the expectation is for a longer period of decline it could trigger a further rush to sell, to get out while there's still some gain left. This could actually make the problem worse.

Wealthy foreigners might see UK property being effectively cheaper after a sterling crash, but if the outlook for those properties is further price falls they're not going to buy.

The trouble with doom and gloom scenarios is that the housing market isn't very liquid - transaction costs are enormous (stamp duty when buying, capital gains tax if selling BTL), and the cost of housing is now so high that making high percentage losses on property could bankrupt a significant proportion of the population. So the choices may instead be:

a) Sell quick and make a loss, which bankrupts you due to the resulting negative equity

b) Stay put and make it the lender's problem - worst case they can evict you and you're no worse off than a), but in the meantime you get a few months free accomodation while the lender gets the legal paperwork done.

The result of a falling market generally is that a lot of people hang on to their property, sales go down, and the whole market stagnates waiting for better times. The property market in London already seems to have slowed significantly - pretty much since the brexit result - which suggests to me that people are already spooked by the prospect of a long-term flat or declining market and aren't willing to buy in or cash out until things are resolved either way. If we get a good brexit outcome we might see house prices recover a little as business goes back to usual, if we see a bad one I'd expect stagnation to become more entrenched rather than seeing any sudden crashes.

Getting back to the original topic... In the short term none of the network will charge. But you can be sure, after a while they will find an excuse to start a £1 a day or somesuch levy for enhanced services or somesuch. Once one network goes, they all will.

Give it a week and I'm sure someone could knock up a plan now that it's been mentioned.

I have no plans to marry a supermodel, but you can be sure if the opportunity arises it will become a serious consideration, especially if - as in this case - there'll be almost no obstacle to doing so at all.

Of course it won't. We all know that. It won't even be the same after next March. It's changed over time so its form in 5-10 years time won't be as we know it now and we will have no influence in the way it changes in 5-10 years (unless, of course, we return).

It will, however, be the neighbour that looms large in our economic environment and the former, much-missed part of our home market. Leavers aren't smart enough to know that.

I would certainly miss the unfettered data usage

When I'm out and about with my camera, in Europe, I like to be able to frequently upload photos from my camera to my phone, and then onto Lightroom in the cloud. If I have the big Sony camera with me, that means I'm shunting a lot of data around. Of course, local SIM cards are readily available and I'm perfectly happy to go back to doing things that way.

So, I think the reintroduction of roaming charges (or simply making my data allowance unusable, as I've found Three are quite good at) would disproportionately affect those who don't have the gumption to find cheaper alternatives. In other words, mostly the very people who voted for this.

So, the Andorra Scenario then

Not a member of the EU.

My UK mobile provider graceously provides data in Andorra at £7.20 *per megabyte*, with an automatic cap at £40, unless you want use their "Unlimited" option "which caps it at 0 MB" as their one of their customer service representatives misrepresented to me.

I suspect they didn't understand what the word "unlimited" meant in that context.

Re: So, the Andorra Scenario then

GiffGaff have a scam running at the moment were your data connection is 'always available' but if you use more than a few Gb, gets throttled. There's a difference between always available and always useable.

Re: GiffGaff

20GB, after 20GB it goes to 384kb between 8AM and midnight.

Usable in that you'll still get your emails, tweets and stuff, but you won't be able to stream video.

Necessary because some will use it as a DSL replacement and stream netflix 24x7 and giffgaff is a budget service without the the full capacity of the O2 network. They make this plain in the plan description so it's hardly a scam.

As an investor in these companies, I hope they act to maximise their long term profit. High roaming charges are a gravy train because businesses seem to pay almost anything and even tourists cannot resist checking messages and Facebook.

As someone who roams for free in the US and Hong Kong free roaming from a network has sod all to do with the EU. Also, just how many normal people spend any time in a year out side their own country? as some one who grew up poor its only the whiney upper middle class guardian readers that think phone roaming costs are an issue that will effect peoples normal lives. Most normal people it'll have at worst make a slight difference for at most 2 weeks a year and only then if they go to the "EU" rather than to say Turkey or the US for a summer holiday.

Please also note that US T-mobile users get free roaming worldwide (on certain plans) so again, sod all to do with the EU

"If something doesn't affect me *personally* it therefore cannot be an issue and only people I hate must think it's a problem. I for some reason that only things that impact a person directly matter, no other types of effect need matter. Only rich people travel, even though I just admitted to personally travelling to places that are far more expensive to visit. I don't have any concept of people travelling for any reason than a summer beach holiday. Also, for some reason I believe that corporations will give me free stuff all the time and never go back on any promises that end up costing them money in the long term once they're no longer legally required to do so."

Yep, sounds like a Leave voter, alright. Ignorant of how things actually work, self-important without qualification and not even consistant within his own argument.